Assuming the unlikely best case scenario where humanity is not erased by the clanker superspecies, typing and scrolling won't do for our machine interface: we will need to engage them more quickly, which will require some direct connection with our minds. This would not make us essential and worth preservation, it would only make us tolerable to the machine gods.
The manner in which data centres and power plants are being deployed/built in service of AI is very similar to organic networks (i.e mycelium, ant hives, the nervous system etc). Is there an argument that humans are now in service of a new form of organism without realising it?
This is the best explanation which all the evidence lends to. The machines are not the tools for us, we are the tools for them - and very conveniently and only coincidentally, we've widely established replenishing-fuel systems of "green energy" for perpetually powering the clankers (against us). #TedKwasright
I recently asked an AI what it would have suggested for powered flight if it only knew what was known in 1890 (before the Wright brothers), it suggested a steam powered flexing wing. Can AI truly create new knowledge or only interpolate?
The evidence so far suggests to me as per other commentators that ai is a mountain climber not a valley crosser, currently giving humans the edge for genuinely new ideas, but AI had already or will likely overtake us in iteration
Quantum computing seemingly gets a lot less attention than AI. Does he believe the reason quantum computing gets less attention for solving Al problems is because significant breakthroughs are seen as being farther out? How big a role does he see quantum computing playing in the development of Al reaching its full potential, or will they remain separate for the foreseeable future?
Kindly ask Konstantin Kisin why he does not refund payment for cancelled subscriptions. Unethical business practices are not what I would expect from Mr. Kisin.
Kindly ask Konstantin Kisin why he does not refund payment for cancelled subscriptions. Unethical business practices are not what I would expect from Mr. Kisin.
Proponents of AI always bring up the analogy of cars replacing horses and the jobs created around the invention of the automobile as a reason why fears of technological change are unfounded. Where the analogy fails is that you're literally replacing one unit of work with another. If an AI can do anything just as well as a human, why wouldn't an AI just do all the jobs that are created around the invention of AI? I don't see any future for human beings where the vast majority of people aren't out of work. Is there any good reason to think otherwise?
Hi Roman, what is it in AI that will get to a point where a program can actually"make its own choice" ie not you asking it to pick a random number and it spits one out, i mean it going from a position having no task to just "thinking" something like deciding to change home screen on a pc from one thing to another with no human input?
Do you think we will ever get a biological/computerised cyborg being similar to the borg? Is resistance futile?
Assuming the unlikely best case scenario where humanity is not erased by the clanker superspecies, typing and scrolling won't do for our machine interface: we will need to engage them more quickly, which will require some direct connection with our minds. This would not make us essential and worth preservation, it would only make us tolerable to the machine gods.
The manner in which data centres and power plants are being deployed/built in service of AI is very similar to organic networks (i.e mycelium, ant hives, the nervous system etc). Is there an argument that humans are now in service of a new form of organism without realising it?
This is the best explanation which all the evidence lends to. The machines are not the tools for us, we are the tools for them - and very conveniently and only coincidentally, we've widely established replenishing-fuel systems of "green energy" for perpetually powering the clankers (against us). #TedKwasright
In the best case scenario where A.I. doesn't erase us, is it plausible that humanity avoids becoming merged with Technology directly?
I recently asked an AI what it would have suggested for powered flight if it only knew what was known in 1890 (before the Wright brothers), it suggested a steam powered flexing wing. Can AI truly create new knowledge or only interpolate?
The evidence so far suggests to me as per other commentators that ai is a mountain climber not a valley crosser, currently giving humans the edge for genuinely new ideas, but AI had already or will likely overtake us in iteration
Do you think there is a risk that AI leads to the human race becoming complacent, not bothering to study, research and advance ourselves?
Quantum computing seemingly gets a lot less attention than AI. Does he believe the reason quantum computing gets less attention for solving Al problems is because significant breakthroughs are seen as being farther out? How big a role does he see quantum computing playing in the development of Al reaching its full potential, or will they remain separate for the foreseeable future?
Kindly ask Konstantin Kisin why he does not refund payment for cancelled subscriptions. Unethical business practices are not what I would expect from Mr. Kisin.
Kindly ask Konstantin Kisin why he does not refund payment for cancelled subscriptions. Unethical business practices are not what I would expect from Mr. Kisin.
Proponents of AI always bring up the analogy of cars replacing horses and the jobs created around the invention of the automobile as a reason why fears of technological change are unfounded. Where the analogy fails is that you're literally replacing one unit of work with another. If an AI can do anything just as well as a human, why wouldn't an AI just do all the jobs that are created around the invention of AI? I don't see any future for human beings where the vast majority of people aren't out of work. Is there any good reason to think otherwise?
Hi Roman, what is it in AI that will get to a point where a program can actually"make its own choice" ie not you asking it to pick a random number and it spits one out, i mean it going from a position having no task to just "thinking" something like deciding to change home screen on a pc from one thing to another with no human input?